A year ago, as we planned this panel, I agreed to present the case for developing policies within Writing Programs to deal with cases of contra-power harassment. A month or so later, right before the proposal submission deadline, I came up with the ti tle: Pro-Active or Ad Hoc. That was a fortunate choice, since in the process of writing this paper, I reversed my direction--giving me both a great example for my students in how the writing process clarify ideas, and, I hope, a more useful perspective o n the WPA and harassment.
In my proposal I had promised a model contra-power harassment policy which I would develop in my own department. Discussion with colleagues, however, and my attempts to draft such a policy led me to question the wisdom of that approach. First, I r ealized that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enact a policy that was not supported by existing university policies. Since appeals are likely if we try to enforce a local policy, any conflict with institutional policy is likely to create eve n more headaches for the WPA.
More importantly, I realized that any Department or program policy would depend heavily on the definitions of harassment it set forth. And as we saw at least year's panel, contra-power harassment can take many forms and involve widely divergent actio ns. In fact, many of the problems we face in dealing with contra-power harassment is that the term "harassment" has been legally defined, and it's that definition that we're having to work against.
Hypertext link: I felt the weight of the legal definition a few years ago, during my term as acting department chair. The university's Affirmative Action officer came to a meeting of department chairs to discuss harassment. In the cou rse of the meeting I tried to raise the problem of students harassing Teaching Assistants (a problem was dealing with at the time). I was severely (actually, I thought rudely) put in my place. With great indignation the AA officer informed me that that was not our concern.
A second definition problem involves the role of gender in harassment cases. The typical contra-power harassment case involves a male student using sexual threats or innuendoes, making inappropriate comments, or writing sexually explicit papers for a female teacher. That understanding might creep into our policies, to the exclusion of other forms of harassment--instances that are gender-based but not explicitly sexual or harassment of male teachers by female students, or same-sex harassment.
Finally, there is the possibility that a formal policy can limit our ability to act. Policies can do that. When my university enacted a Writing Across the Curriculum policy, requiring that students take two writing emphasis courses as part of their G eneral Education curriculum, the plan was to encourage more student writing. The effect was to give both students and teachers the idea that they didn't have to have writing in their other Gen Ed courses. Or we have the example of quota policies, where minimum diversity standards become maxima--once we've reached them we're okay. Policies sometimes create the opposite of the intended effect.
Hypertext link:My own department illustrates another problem in policy development. A few years ago we felt the need for a departmental attendance policy. After nearly a year of sub-committees, meetings, and negotiations, the best we could come up with was "The department supports the attendance policies of its faculty members."
So, rather than write policies, I propose that Writing Programs need to develop a set of procedures that will use existing University Policies and provide training and support for faculty members. My recommendations here are drawn partly from my own e xperience, partly from the work that Julia Ferganchick-Neufang has done, and partly from a very productive discussion of this topic on the WPA listserv list.
University policies first: I'm not going to suggest a university policy specifically about contra-power harassment; that could run into some of the same problems I just mentioned. And as I've already noted, existing sexual harassment policies (like th e laws they're based on) typically deal with "top-down" harassment. (Quick disclaimer here--if you want to pursue a University policy, take a look at the Citadel's, which does include student-student and student to faculty harassment.) My recommendation is to look elsewhere: Most universities have existing codes of student conduct that can be used to good advantage. On my campus the relevant part of the code is the statement on disruption--a holdover from the antiwar disruptions of the 70's. It was wr itten in rather general and sweeping terms that would allow the administration to take whatever action it wanted against students (and faculty). What was reactionary, establishment piggery back then can be useful now. Harassing comments in class or crea ting an atmosphere that makes it impossible for the teacher to teach the class effectively can be considered "disruption," or, in the terms of a state law that goes back to 1961, "interference . . . with the pursuit of educational activities."
So, Procedure One for WPAs (and department chairs) is to become familiar with university policies and codes of student conduct, along with any relevant state laws, particularly those on disruption.
Procedure Two is the Pro-Active part: WPAs need to confront the issue of contra-power harassment directly and completely in TA training and New Faculty orientation. And in faculty development sessions or meetings with veteran faculty.
We need to let teachers know that they do not need to tolerate unacceptable behaviors, nor do they need to be embarrassed about reporting them. I've heard plenty of stories of teachers who only came to their WPA as the last resort, after having "taken it" for days or even weeks. There is an understandable attitude out there that we're supposed to be able to handle our students, and that to complain about student behavior is to reveal our inability to do our job. WPAs can change that attitude by talk ing about harassment openly with TAs and faculty. One of the most useful suggestions Julia Ferganchick-Neufang makes in her Kairos article on harassment is to do some role-playing in orientation sessions; an alternative for the less dramatically i nclined is to write a scenerio for discussion. But we need to talk about harassment.
Next, we need to provide teachers with techniques for avoiding harassment situations or dealing with them when they occur: These are commonplaces, or common sense, for experienced teachers. They may not be for novices.
Another hyperlink: We may tend to think that the contra-power harassment problem is a new one. After all, none of us harassed our teachers; it's a recent phenomenon. Fact is, part of my TA orientation at Rutgers 30 years ago dealt wit h this problem. Actually, it's about the only thing I remember from that orientation. I understood, unequivocally, that I was to have my office door open whenever a student was in the office. I understood the risk, and I obeyed. And I remembered.
My third and final procedure is to move outside the department. This is closely tied to my argument that we should work at the university level rather than the department or program level. The problem is not just ours. In fact, the most frightening s tories of contra-power harassment on my campus come from outside our department. All I had to do was mention student harassment of teachers to unleash a flood of stories. A male assistant professor in the Computer Science department, on the same day, go t an anonymous note threatening his life and had his tires slashed. A counselor, in a closed door counseling session had to relieve a student of an eight-inch hunting knife. A sociology professor, who teaches the course in diversity, found a note on he r office door saying that what she really needed was to be raped.
Clearly we need to make this a campus issue. We're not alone; we just don't talk about it. Until someone invites us to. Finally, besides talking to colleagues, WPAs and department chairs need to tap into sympathetic campus resources. Deans, Affirm
ative Action Officers, Directors of Student Services or Student Life,
University Lawyers, Student Advocates or Ombudsmen can be a help or a hindrance. Finding out ahead of time where university-level support can be found will keep us from encountering slammed doors in a crisis.